News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:A quick look at zero-knowledge proofs by goldthreads on Sunday August 16, 2026 @07:50PM (#49325007)
ZKP is 100% bullshit.

It’s a new word invented by people who don’t know hashing and databases already exist.

Re:A quick look at zero-knowledge proofs by diamondclouds on Sunday August 16, 2026 @08:10PM (#49325136)
It has a use case in peer-to-peer or anywhere that you want the server to trust the connections.

Sometimes you want clients to be authoritative (although rare).

Re:A quick look at zero-knowledge proofs by Retr0id on Sunday August 16, 2026 @07:52PM (#49325023)
A great way to announce that you don't understand ZKP
Re:A quick look at zero-knowledge proofs by goldthreads on Sunday August 16, 2026 @07:56PM (#49325042)
Explain why you need ZKP for their flagship problem - the “prove you’re 21” thing.

Or choose any case you like.

Explain why I can’t do it without this hilariously elementary philosophy detached from real world dev.

No cheating! I get access to the same resources. Explain why I need ZKP.

Re:A quick look at zero-knowledge proofs by striking on Sunday August 16, 2026 @08:14PM (#49325160)
I think the fine article says it best when it says

> After doing a bit of research, we decided that the most common real world use cases of zero-knowledge proofs (age verification, crypto, etc) aren’t particularly interesting to us. We enjoyed the graphs and theory of computation and networked computing though. We hope you had fun playing around with interactive proofs too.

The inclusion of this statement makes your comments look rather bizarre and strangely combative by comparison. Maybe we can just enjoy a bit of math together?

Re:A quick look at zero-knowledge proofs by Retr0id on Sunday August 16, 2026 @08:03PM (#49325091)
I actually don't think ZKPs solve the age verification problem (for a variety of reasons that won't fit here), but they solve plenty of more interesting problems. Private transactions in Zcash, for example.
Re:A quick look at zero-knowledge proofs by diamondclouds on Sunday August 16, 2026 @08:15PM (#49325169)
Only because zcash trusts the sending node - whoever is hosting that ledger.

If they had no clue who it was, like the typical http web, they could not allow a sender to be a prover, since they would not be able to verify their balance. At some point a balance inquiry would have to reveal who they are. It only works if you trust the banker.

Re:A quick look at zero-knowledge proofs by nojokepoke on Sunday August 16, 2026 @08:24PM (#49325228)
PAKE has been using ZKPs for a decade. Here. Read this : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Password_Authenticated_Key_Exc...

Funny that not only are you ignorant you are violently confident in your ignorance. I suffer from this sometimes too so I get it. Get some help.

Re:A quick look at zero-knowledge proofs by diamondclouds on Sunday August 16, 2026 @08:30PM (#49325270)
> Alice sends out

It relies on trusting that Alice’s request is valid. If Alice sends another proof, she will have a different balance. Alice decides what to send. The server blindly accepts it.

You actually don’t want that for a lot of security and that’s why nobody uses ZKP for passwords or really anywhere outside theory - dumb theory that doesn’t understand basic web dev. We already have hashing and databases. There is a narrow use case for trusting clients - like receiving updates from intranet or p2p devices - maybe you use ZKP to omit unnecessary pii. But that’s it. It’s not what you think it is.

Re:A quick look at zero-knowledge proofs by Groxx on Sunday August 16, 2026 @08:45PM (#49325363)
> Alice sends out

Alice can send anything in any cryptographic scheme involving two parties, the only real safety in any of it is "are the odds of an accepted different value low enough to be impractical for an attacker". Does that apply here too?

Re:A quick look at zero-knowledge proofs by rubyclouds on Sunday August 16, 2026 @10:51PM (#49326046)
What? Of course it’s a massive security flaw if you let any end user device send anything they want and just go “well they probably won’t send fake amounts”

Imagine such a bank. Or social media (impersonate anyone, just say you’re them on the request why not), or any website.

The “zero knowledge” part of the name checks out.

Re:A quick look at zero-knowledge proofs by nojokepoke on Sunday August 16, 2026 @09:12PM (#49325523)
Please explain how Alice’s request can ever be not valid. It’s literally a pre authenticated exchange.

Also nice sock puppet.

Re:A quick look at zero-knowledge proofs by Ar-Curunir on Sunday August 16, 2026 @09:42PM (#49325693)
Yes, they just hand out Turing Awards for bullshit.
Re:A quick look at zero-knowledge proofs by yellowkitex on Sunday August 16, 2026 @11:47PM (#49326369)
“Turing Award”? Lol. No comment. I will say that Turing completeness is overrated. Solve a problem instead.

If you understood it, you’d have more respect for systems that are not Turing complete (and know it / don’t want to be).